G/AG/W/222  
 
5 September 2022  
(22-6615) Page: 1/40 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 14 -15 SEPTEMBER 20221 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of noon on 
1 September 2022 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/60.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ .. 6 
1.1   Canada – Financial support for wine production (SIM 747)  ................................ ................  6 
1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 102009)  ................................ ........................  6 
1.2   China's grain reserve (SIM 748)  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102075)  ................................ ................................ .. 6 
1.3   China's Blue Box support to cotton  (SIM 749)  ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.3.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102032)  ................................ ...........  6 
1.4   Egypt's increase in planted area (SI M 751)  ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
1.4.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 102011)  ................................ ........................  7 
1.5   EU's new CAP (SIM 752) ................................ ................................ ...............................  7 
1.5.1    Question by Korea, Republic of (AG -IMS ID 102091)  ................................ .....................  7 
1.6   India's price support  (SIM 753)  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America, Australia, Parag uay (AG -IMS ID 102017)  ..............  7 
1.7   Japan's stockpiles of skim milk powder (SIM 754)  ................................ ...........................  7 
1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102093)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.8   Kazakhstan's export quotas on meslin, wheat, and wheat flour  (SIM 755)  ..........................  8 
1.8.1    Question by United States of America, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS ID 102028)  ...............  8 
1.9   Mexico - Tariff reductions on foodstuf fs to improve food security (SIM 756)  ........................  8 
1.9.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102101)  ................................ ............................  8 
1.10   Panama's support to rice, milk, and maize (SIM 757)  ................................ .....................  8 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102023)  ................................ ..........  8 
1.11   Panama's compliance with its domestic support commitments (SIM 758)  ..........................  9 
1.11.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, European Union (AG -IMS ID 102022)  ..... 9 
1.12   Philippines' import regime for rice (SIM 759)  ................................ ................................ . 9 
1.12.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102038)  ................................ ..........  9 
1.13   Saudi Arabia's tariff increases on agricultural goods (SIM 760)  ................................ ........  9 
1.13.1    Question by A ustralia (AG -IMS ID 102109)  ................................ ................................  9 
1.14   Chinese Taipei's import tariff on Champagne (SIM 750)  ................................ ................. 10 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102085)  ................................ ............................... 10 
1.15   UK's SSG entitlements  (SIM 761)  ................................ ................................ ............... 10 
1.15.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102095)  ................................ ................................ ....10 
1.16   UK's Bound Total AMS (SIM 762)  ................................ ................................ ................ 10 
1.16.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102094)  ................................ ................................ ....10 
1.17   U.S. funding for environmental action (SIM 763)  ................................ .......................... 11 
1.17.1    Question by New Zealand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102102)  ................................ .......... 11 
1.18   United States - Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy (SIM 764)  ..................... 11 
1.18.1    Question by New Zealand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102103)  ................................ .......... 11 
1.19   U.S. support to biofuel producers (SIM 765)  ................................ ................................ 11 G/AG/W/222  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.19.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102096)  ................................ ................................ ....11 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .......... 11 
1.20   Argentina's export restrictions  (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ .....11 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
102076)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 
1.21   Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ .............................. 12 
1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102073)  ................................ ......................... 12 
1.22   Canada's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  ................................ ............................ 12 
1.22.1    Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 102090)  ................................ ..................... 12 
1.23   China's cotton policies  (SIM 647)  ................................ ................................ ................ 12 
1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102034)  ................................ ......... 12 
1.23.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102035)  ................................ ......... 12 
1.24   China's cotton reserves purchasing system (SIM 295)  ................................ ................... 13 
1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102033)  ................................ ......... 13 
1.25   Egypt's Export Prohibitions on Agricultural Products (SIM 597)  ................................ .......14 
1.25.1    Question by  New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS ID  102074)  ....14 
1.26   Egypt's import requirement  (SIM 741)  ................................ ................................ ........ 14 
1.26.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 102010)  ................................ ..................... 14 
1.27   India's export restrictions on wheat (SIM 118)  ................................ ............................. 14 
1.27.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102092)  ................................ ............................... 14 
1.27.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102078) ................................ ............................... 14 
1.27.3    Question by European Union, United States of America, Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -
IMS ID 102012)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 
1.27.4    Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay, United Kingdom, Canada, 
Ukraine, New Zealand, European  Union (AG -IMS ID 102021)  ................................ .................. 15 
1.28   India's oilseeds policies (SIM 673)  ................................ ................................ .............. 16 
1.28.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102080) ................................ ............................... 16 
1.29   India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ............. 16 
1.29.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102079) ................................ ............................... 16 
1.29.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102081) ................................ ............................... 16 
1.29.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102083)  ................................ ......................... 16 
1.29.4    Question by United States of America, Thailand,  Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada, European Union (AG -IMS ID 102018)  ................................ ................................ .......17 
1.29.5    Question by United States of America, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada, European Union (AG -IMS ID 102019)  ................................ ................................ .......17 
1.30   India's other support f or rice  (SIM 743)  ................................ ................................ .......17 
1.30.1    Question by United States of America, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada, Europea n Union (AG -IMS ID 102020)  ................................ ................................ .......17 
1.31   Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits (SIM  655) ......18 
1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102036)  ................................ ......... 18 
1.31.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102037)  ................................ ......... 18 
1.32   Tajikistan's poultry tariffs (SIM 687)  ................................ ................................ ........... 18 G/AG/W/222  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.32.1    Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 102030)  ................................ ......... 18 
1.33   Tajikistan's new Tax Code (SIM 702)  ................................ ................................ ........... 19 
1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102031)  ................................ ......... 19 
1.34   Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ ......19 
1.34.1    Question by United States of America, Switzerland, Japan, United Kingdom (AG -IMS 
ID 102029)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 
1.35   U.S. domestic support programmes (SIM 660)  ................................ ............................. 20 
1.35.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102129)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  20 
2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....20 
2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/70)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 
2.1.2    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/48)  ................................ ................................ .......20 
2.1.3    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/82)  ................................ ................................ .................... 20 
2.1.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/76)  ................................ ................................ ............... 20 
2.1.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/28)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 21 
2.1.6    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/278)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 
2.1.7    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/13)  ................................ ................................ ................... 21 
2.1.8    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/89)  ................................ ................................ ......... 21 
2.1.9    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/121)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 22 
2.1.10    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/60)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 22 
2.1.11    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/82)  ................................ ................................ ................... 22 
2.1.12    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/13)  ................................ ................................ ........... 23 
2.1.13    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/162) ................................ ............................. 24 
2.2   Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .................... 25 
2.2.1    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 
2.2.2    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/81)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 
2.3   Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 25 
2.3.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/49, G/AG/N/ARG/50, G/AG/N/ARG/51) ................................ ....25 
2.3.2    Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/30, G/AG/N/BOL/31, G/AG/N/BOL/32)  .......... 26 
2.3.3    Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/35)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
2.3.4    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/66, G/AG/N/CUB/67)  ................................ ................................ ...27 
2.3.5    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/79)  ................................ ................................ ............... 27 
2.3.6    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/25)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 29 
2.3.7    Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/52)  ................................ ................................ ......... 29 
2.3.8    India (G/AG/N/IND/27)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 
2.3.9    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/277)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
2.3.10    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/53)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 31 
2.3.11    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/85)  ................................ ................................ ................... 31 
2.3.12    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/114)  ................................ ................................ ............... 31 
2.3.13    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  ................................ ................................ ........... 32 
2.3.14    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157) ................................ ............................. 33 G/AG/W/222  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4   New or modified domestic support measures (Tab le DS:2)  ................................ .............. 34 
2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/52)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 
2.4.2    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/53)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 
2.5   Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ ............................ 34 
2.5.1    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/19)  ................................ ................................ ................... 34 
2.5.2    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/52, G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1)  ................................ ..................... 35 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  35 
3.1   Botswana  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 35 
3.2   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 35 
3.3   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 
3.4   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 
3.5   Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 36 
3.6   Malaysia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36 
3.7   Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 37 
3.8   South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 
4   EXPORT  COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  37 
4.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 37 
4.2   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 37 
4.3   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 
4.4   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 38 
4.5   Ghana  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 
4.6   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 39 
4.7   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 39 
4.8   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......40 
4.9   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 40 
4.10   Türkiye  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 40 
 
  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Canada – Financial support for wine production  (SIM 747)  
1.1.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG -IMS ID 102009 ) 
Canada has introduced a new support programme for wine production 
(https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural -programs -and-services/wine -sector -support -
program ), whereby Canada will support its wine industry with a total amount of CAD  166 million 
over two years, which i s in the order of CAD 1.11 per litre and per year. We understand that this 
programme was initially proposed by the Government of Canada in Budget 2021 for a total amount 
of CAD  101 million over two years, under the title "Support for Jobs in the Canadian Wine Sector ". 
a. Can Canada explain the reasons for introduction of such a significant aid scheme for its 
wine industry, and why the total amount was increased by 64%, compared to the initial 
proposal?  
b. Can Canada elaborate how this new aid scheme is in line with the ongoing discussion in 
WTO to reduce Trade Distorting support measures and  
c. Which measures has Canada taken to ensure that such a significant aid schemes for a 
specific sector does not influence trade patterns?  
1.2  China's grain reserve  (SIM 748 ) 
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102075 ) 
Australia notes that the China Grain Reserves Corporation Group (Sinograin), which manages the 
national grain rese rve, purchased 110,000 metric tonnes of wheat.  
Could China please explain:  
a. What was the purchase price paid for the wheat?  
b. What are the influencing factors whereby the  Sinograin determines the volume of the 
reserve?  
c. How does the Sinograin determine the price at which grains are sold on the open market?  
d. Will the stocks of wheat procured be from the domestic market only?  
1.3  China's Blue Box support to cotton  (SIM 749)  
1.3.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102032 ) 
On 14 December 2018, China submitted a Table DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/CHN/48 ) on a measure 
entitled "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton" . According to the notification, "The 
amount of subsidized cotton  is subject to a limit, which is 85% or less of the average cotton 
production in the base period (2012 -2014) " and the period of application was 2017 -2019.   
Taking note that China's most recent Table DS:1 notification is for 2016 and noting the notified 
measure ended in 2019:   
Please provide an update on whether this measure continued to be applied after 2019.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.4  Egypt's increase in planted area  (SIM 751)  
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 102011 ) 
According to press report in Agricensus, Egypt is targeting an increase in planted area of up to one 
million acres in 2023. Egypt had managed to add 200,000 acres to its planted area, reclaiming it 
back from unusable l and in order to plant more corn.   
Can Egypt explain which support measures were implemented to achieve this increase in planted 
area?  
1.5  EU's new CAP  (SIM 752)  
1.5.1   Question by Korea, Republic of (AG -IMS ID 102091 ) 
As far as we know with regard to "The new CAP 2023 -2027", the European Commission  (EC) sent 
observation letters to all of the member States in May. According to the latest press release on 
31 August, the Co mmission approved the first package of CAP strategic plans for seven countries: 
Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, and Spain. The Republic of Korea would like to 
request additional information from the EU on the progress made in  the preparation of "The new 
CAP" which is scheduled to implement on 1 January 2023.  
 
1.6  India 's price support  (SIM 753)  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America, Australia, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102017 ) 
The United States remains concerned by India 's aggregation of price supports for different 
commodities in G/AG/N/IND/27 . India establishes unique a nd different price supports for each 
coarse cereal, including barley, maize, millet, and sorghum, and each pulse including gram 
(chickpeas), arhar/tur (pigeon peas), urad (black matpe), moong (mung beans), and lentils.  In past 
Committee responses India has  noted that it has consistently aggregated these commodities, such 
as in response to AG -IMS ID 91177 . However, India has yet to provide an explanation as to what 
policy action resulted in India changing its notification methodology as compared to its Agricultural 
Supporting Tables, which are the basis of India 's domestic support commitments.  
a. Please explain what policy change occurred prior to 1995 -96 that necessitated a change 
in how India notifies support for these commodities, which resulted in India 's subsequent 
consistent notification of price supports on an aggregate basis.  
b. Please provide t he level of procurement for the following commodities for the notification 
period 2020/21 in G/AG/N/IND/27  for each of the following commodities: jowar, bajra, 
maize, tur, moong, urad, barley, gram, and masur.  
c. Please provide the value of production for each of the following commodities for the 
notification period 2020/21 in G/AG/N/I ND/27 : jowar, bajra, maize, tur, moong, urad, 
barley, gram, and masur.  
1.7  Japan's stockpiles of skim milk powder  (SIM 754)  
1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 1020 93) 
Australia notes that in April 2022 Japan has introduced a scheme ( https://www.j -
milk.jp/gyokai/2022zaiko.html ) to reduce excess stockpiles of skim milk powder (SMP), which was 
expected to have  reached a record high of 100,000 tonnes at the end of August.  
In relation to butter and SMP, could Japan please:   
a. Clarify whether Japan expects that these stockpiles will continue to increase?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 8 - 
 
  b. Explain whether existing government and industry -led efforts h ave led to a reduction in 
the level of stockpiles?  
c. Clarify whether the existence of these stockpiles will have any long -term structural impacts 
to its dairy industry?  
1.8  Kazakhstan's export quotas on meslin, wheat, and wheat flour  (SIM 755)  
1.8.1   Question by United  States of America, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS ID 102028 ) 
Kazakhstan has instituted export quotas on meslin, wheat, and wheat flour beginning 16  April 2022 
and extended until 30 September 2022 under Orders of the Minister of Agriculture No.  110 and 214.  
 
The United States reminds Kazakhstan that as a WTO Member it agreed to notify export restrictions 
implemented on products for which Kazakhstan is a net -food exporter to the WTO Committee on 
Agriculture.   
a. Please explain the reasoning for instituting these quantitative export restrictions.  
b. When will Kazakhstan notify its export restrictions to the WTO Committee on Agriculture?   
c. According to paragraph 5 of Order 110, the export quotas will be distributed to applicants 
who have sold 10 % of the quota volume declared for export at a fixed price, published by 
the Ministry of Agriculture.  Please explain the purpose of this provision.  
d. Please clarify what Kazakhsta n means by a fixed price. Has Kazakhstan instituted set 
prices at which meslin, wheat, or wheat flour must be sold, if applicants are to receive 
quota allocations?   
1.9  Mexico - Tariff reductions on foodstuffs to improve food security  (SIM 756)  
1.9.1   Question by New  Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102101 ) 
New Zealand commends Mexico for their recent tariff reductions on foodstuffs to improve Mexican 
food security, demonstrating how trade liberalisation can be used to address domestic food security 
concerns. New Zealand would appreciate more detail on the effects of this tariff reduction on Mexico 's 
food security.  
1.10  Panama 's support to rice, milk, and maize  (SIM 757)  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102023 ) 
The United States ' request for more information about Panama 's support provided to rice, milk, and 
maize, outlined in AG -IMS ID 99082  and in reference to G/AG/N/PAN/58 , remains valid for Panama 's 
most recen t Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/PAN/61 ). As Panama has yet to provide a response to 
AG-IMS ID 99082 , the United Sta tes repeats the question:  
The United States understands, based on AG -IMS ID 93196, that the notified value represents 
payments made for any rice sold during the notified calendar year – whether production is from the 
current agricultural year or a previous agricultural year.  This is also noted in AG -IMS ID 92062  where 
the United States understands Panama to state that the eligible production figure represente d 
2018 production as well as production from the last few months of 2017.  
Further, the United States notes that the same measure as for rice is notified for milk and maize in 
Supporting Table DS:6.  It was the United States ' understanding that all outlays m ade during the 
given calendar year, for rice, milk, and maize, regardless of when production occurred, was the 
notified outlay value.  However, in G/AG/N/PAN/58 , Panama includes a new footnote only for rice in 
Supporting Table DS:4 stating, "Amount includes support for previous years. " G/AG/W/222  
 
- 9 - 
 
  a. Please provide further clarification on what the reporting year for notified outlays in 
Supporting Table DS:4 and Supporting Table DS:6 represent and whether there is a 
difference for rice versus other commodities.  
b. Please provide further c larification as to what the eligible production listed represents 
specifically.  For example, does the volume notified in G/AG/N/PAN/58  represent all 
production sold during specific months at the end of 2019 and most/all of 2020?  
1.11  Panama 's compliance with its domestic support commitme nts (SIM 758)  
1.11.1   Question by United States of America, Canada , European Union  (AG-IMS 
ID 102022 ) 
The United States takes note that Panama has not responded to a ny Members ' questions since the 
97th Committee meeting regarding Panama 's compliance with its domestic support commitments, 
particularly with respect to notified support for rice.  In addition to Panama 's lack of engagement in 
this Committee, the United Sta tes is concerned that notified domestic support for rice remained 
above de minimis in calendar year 2021 ( G/AG/N/PAN/61 ).  
We request that Panama answer all outstanding questions, in particular those raised by Members 
concerned with Panama 's notified non -compliance with its WTO comm itments.   
The United States remains keenly interested to learn more from Panama with regards to Panama 's 
response to AG -IMS ID 97141 , which notes that a commission would review Law 17 of 2018 in the 
first half of 2021.  As requested in AG -IMS ID 99081 and 101071 , please provide an update on this 
review and what the findings were.  
As requested in AG -IMS ID 101088 , what actions are being taken by Panama to bring its domestic 
support fo r rice within the de minimis level?  
1.12  Philippines' import regime for rice  (SIM 759)  
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102038 ) 
According to media reports, the Department of Agriculture is reviewing the role of the National Food 
Authority in importing rice (Source: "DA reviewing Rice Tariffication Law, role of NFA, " GMA News, 
21 July 2022, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/economy/838900/da -reviewing -rice-
tariffication -law-role-of-nfa/story/?amp ).  
Is the Philippines considering modifying its import regime for rice, and i f so, how?  
1.13  Saudi Arabia's tariff increases on  agricultural goods  (SIM 760)  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102109 ) 
On 12 June 2022, the Kingdom of Saudi Ara bia announced ( https://uqn.gov.sa/?p=13904 ) that it 
would increase tariffs on a range of imported products, including agricultural goods. Australia notes 
that these tariff increases  are now set to the upper bound  limit. In the announcement the Zakat, 
Customs and Taxation Authority stated the justification for these increases was for the purpose of 
protecting and encouraging national industries and local agricultural products.  
a. Given the diverse range of agricultura l products subject to the tariff increases, can the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain the domestic circumstances and policy rationale for 
increasing these tariffs?  
b. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia please indicate how long it expects these tariffs to 
remain at the higher rate?  
c. Does the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia envisage further tariff increases on other products in 
the short -to-medium term?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 10 - 
 
  d. Is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia intending on introducing any other measures to protect 
their national agricultural i ndustries?  
1.14  Chinese Taipei's import tariff on Champagne  (SIM 750)  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102085 ) 
On 26 April 2022 Chinese Taipei Legislature passed an amendment bill to halve the import tariff on 
Champagne to 1 0%. Statements made by Democratic Prog ressive Party Legislator Lin Chu -yin 
(https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202204260022 ) explained that the reduction of the tariff of 
champagne was to address "unfair international trade practice ", as champagne was taxed at double 
the rate of non -sparkling wine. The tariff rate on sparkling wines which were produced outside of 
Champagne region of France remains unchanged at 20 %. 
Can Chinese Taipei please explain how this measure is in line with their commitments under the 
GATT, specifically that Members should not discriminate between like goods originating in different 
countries, as the reduction only applies to sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of 
France, not like products produced else where.  
1.15  UK's SSG entitlements  (SIM 761)  
1.15.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102095 ) 
The U nited Kingdom  has replicated its market access concessions from the EU -28 sc hedule. In this 
context, India seeks clarification on the following:  
a. According to World Tariff Profile 2022, the United Kingdom  has claimed agricultural special 
safeguards  (SSG) on 30.2 % of agricultural tariff lines, while EU -27 has claimed SSGs only 
on 23.0 % of their agricultural tariff lines. Could the United Kingdom  elaborate on why 
there is a difference in the percent of agriculture SSGs between UK and EU -27 despite 
replicating EU -28 concessions?  
b. The U nited Kingdom  has claimed the right to impose SSGs on certain agricultural products 
as evident from its schedule of concession, which includes both volume -based and 
price-based SSGs. India understands that a price -based SSG can be imposed  when the 
import price falls below the product -specific trigger price. In this context, could the United 
Kingdom  provide details on how the trigger prices for products entitled with SSG have 
been determined?  
1.16  UK's Bound Total AMS  (SIM 762)  
1.16.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 102094 ) 
The United Kingdom  has claimed an AMS of 5,914.1 million Euros, which was later redenominated 
in as 4,949.3 million GBP. In the document no. G/MA/TAR/RS/570, the United Kingdom  has 
mentioned that the AMS has been calculated by rerunning the original calculation undertaken in the 
Uruguay Round for the United Kingdom  only, including the 20% reduction and apportionment for 
credit for reform me asures already taken at the time. In this context, India requests the United 
Kingdom  to furnish further details on:  
a. How was the AMS calculated?  
b. What is the basis of apportionment of credit between the United Kingdom  and the 
remaining members of the E uropea n Union? G/AG/W/222  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.17  U.S. funding for environmental action  (SIM 763)  
1.17.1   Question by New Zealand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102102 ) 
New Zealand appreciates the United States ' support for environmental action in agriculture through 
the Inflation Reduction Act.  
 
New Zealand hopes that the funding provided under the act will be consistent with the United States ' 
WTO obligations, and that it will be notified in due course. Can the Unit ed States please advise:  
a. When and how the act will be notified as part of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. How the United States is giving respect to their WTO obligations when providing farmers 
with funding for environmental action?  
1.18  United States - Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy  (SIM 764)  
1.18.1   Question by New Zealand, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102103 ) 
New Zealand would appreciate an update from the United States ' on the progress of its Climate 
Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy , including how the US intends to meet its WTO obligations 
when developing this Strategy?  
1.19  U.S. support to biofuel producers  (SIM 765)  
1.19.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID  102096 ) 
In December 2021, USDA announced that it will provide USD 800 million as economic relief to biofuel 
producers impacted by the pandemic ( https://www.usda.gov/media/press -
releases/2021/12/07/usda -make -800-million -available -provide -economic -relief-biofuel ). Out of 
this, USD  700 million will be directly paid to biofuel producers and the rest USD 100 million will be 
used to increase the sales of biofuel. By making payments to biofuels producers, the programme 
will help agricultural producers maintain and create more viable mar kets for products that supply 
biofuel production, such as corn, soybeans, or biomass. India requests the United States to provide 
details on the following:  
a. How would this support be categorized in the domestic support notification?  
b. What are the eligibility  criteria for producers to benefit under this scheme?  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.20  Argentina's export restrictions  (SIM 710)  
1.20.1   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Japan, Switzerland 
(AG-IMS ID 102076 ) 
As Argentina has yet to provide a response to the United States ', United Kingdom 's, and Japan 's 
request for more information about Argentina 's export restrictions in AG -IMS ID 101030 , the United 
States repeats the question:  
We take note that Argentina has im posed an increasing number of export restrictions affecting 
agricultural products, including beef, wheat, corn, and barley. For example, in December 2021, the 
Argentinian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries published Resolution 276/2021 and 
Circular 06/2021 – an export quota on maize and wheat; however, the quotas for maize in 2021 -22 
and wheat in 2022 -23 are below average export volumes in recent years.  
a. Please confirm when these export restrictions will be permanently lifted.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 12 - 
 
  b. When will Argent ina notify these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture 
through the required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.21  Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  
1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102073 ) 
New Zealand has previously raised questions around Canada's milk classes, and notes Canada 's 
responses in AG -IMS ID 101013 , AG-IMS ID  100064  and AG -IMS ID  99098 . New Zealand continues 
to seek further explanation on how setting milk class 4(a) prices at  only CAD 4.2127/kg – 
substantially below the cost of productio n for milk protein, (which the Canadian Dairy Commission 
estimates to be CAD 5.41/kg2), is substantively different to the implementation of the previous 
Classes 6 and 7.  
Further, New Zealand seeks to clarify the effect on the increased Canadian value -added protein 
products onto the world market.  Canadian exports of refined lactose, as a by -product of highly 
processed Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC), has risen dramatically since 2019. Of Canada 's total 
production of value -added milk protein products includin g milk protein concentrates, infant formula, 
skim milk powder (SMP) and SMP blends, what percentage was accounted for by domestic Canadian 
demand as compared to exports annually since 2019?  
1.22  Canada 's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  
1.22.1   Question by United Kin gdom (AG -IMS ID 102090 ) 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 99110 , 100065  and 101016 , the United Kingdom wishes to reiterate its 
interest in the results of Canada 's Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products. Is Canada able to provide an update 
on the expected delivery date of the review 's results?  
1.23  China's cotton po licies  (SIM 647)  
1.23.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102034 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 90075 , the United States asked for statistics on the volume of cotton production for 
both Xinjiang and for China, nationally, for each of the years from 2012 to 2017. China stated that 
statistics were being updated and the respo nse would be provided later.  However, the data has not 
yet been provided to this Committee.   
Please provide the volume of cotton production for both Xinjiang and for China, nationally, for each 
of the years from 2012 to 2021.  
1.23.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102035 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 90075 , China stated that the cotton target price subsidy was only being provided to 
the Xinjiang autonomous region, and not to any other cotton producing provinces during the 
transition period.  
a. Has the transition period concluded?  
b. Is Xinjiang still the only region that receives the cotton target price subsidy?  
c. Has there been any change to the calculation of the base period cotton production?  
d. What was the rationale for setting a li mit against national production, but limiting 
production that can be procured to only one sub -national region?  
 
2 Per the 2020 Cost of Production for Solids Non Fat and the sample milk production reported in 
October  2021 by the Canadian Dairy Commission.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.24  China's cotton reserves purchasing system (SIM 295)  
1.24.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102033 ) 
On 13 July 2022, the China State Cotton Reserve Corporation began buying cotton. Since this date 
the China State Cotton Reserve Corporation has procured 58,660 ton nes of cotton at an average 
price of 15,951 yuan/ton ne. The following table includes the daily volume and prices of cotton 
purchases made by the China State Cotton Reserve Corporation as of 19 August 2022, according to 
notices posted on the China National Cotton Exchange website 
(http://www.cottonchina.org.cn/news/newsser.php?relnews1=2022%C2%D6%C8%EB&relnews=
%C2%D6%C8%EB%C6%C0%CA%F6 ).  
Date  Purchase Quant ity (ton nes) Average Price (yuan/ton ne) 
7/13/2022  5,000 16,254 
7/14/2022  6,000 16,286 
7/15/2022  6,000 16,057 
7/18/2022  480 16,490 
7/19/2022  2,960 15,950 
7/20/2022  3,040 16,130 
7/21/2022  2,960 15,928 
7/22/2022  2,360 15,776 
7/25/2022  2,860 15,849 
7/26/2022  2,600 15,872 
7/27/2022  2,000 15,891 
7/28/2022  2,200 15,868 
7/29/2022  1,400 15,793 
8/1/2022  3,800 15,829 
8/2/2022  4,960 15,797 
8/3/2022  3,600 15,779 
8/4/2022  1,920 15,703 
8/5/2022  2,120 15,706 
8/8/2022  1,600 15,712 
8/9/2022  800 15,658 
a. Please confirm whether these purchases were made under an extension of the measure 
entitled "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton ", which was notified in 
G/AG/N/CHN/48 , or under some new measure.  
b. Please confirm whether any other government or state -owned enterprise purchases were 
made for the current season.  If so, please provide the quantities and purchase prices.  
c. Have similar purchases occurred in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 or 2021?  If so, please pr ovide 
the quantities and purchase prices made by the China State Cotton Reserve Corporation 
or other entities for each year, as well as a clarification of the measure under which 
purchases were made for each year, if different.  
d. Please explain the processes  for these auctions, including how it is determined how much 
the government will purchase and how the price is determined.   
e. Please indicate whether there are any limits placed on the maximum quantity of cotton 
that the government may purchase.  
f. What entitie s are allowed to participate in these auctions?  
g. Please explain the rules for eventual release of these stocks of cotton.  
h. Please provide the regulation that governs the release of government or state -owned 
stocks of cotton.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.25  Egypt's Export Prohibitions on A gricultural Products (SIM 597)  
1.25.1   Question by New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS 
ID 102074 ) 
New Zealand recognizes the significant challen ges to food security that Egypt is facing. We 
understand that Egypt has introduced two export restrictions in June of 2022. Firstly, on the 10th of 
June, a restriction on Flour, oils, lentils, pasta, and beans. Secondly, on the 12th of June, a restriction 
on Vegetable oil and maize. New  Zealand is interested in any further information that Egypt can 
provide on their export restriction policies.   
1.26  Egypt's import requirement  (SIM 741)  
1.26.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 102010 ) 
The EU would like to reiterate its question AG -IMS 101003  to Egypt and ask for a reply:   
The European Union would like to express its concerns concerning the mandatory usage of Letters 
of Credit as unique method of payment for imports into Egypt.  
This requirement has increase d the administrative burden and cost of exporting to Egypt, and has 
led to significant delays and import blockages, including for strategic and/or perishable agricultural 
products (seeds, apples).  
Taking into account Article X (1) of GATT 1994, as well as  the Agreement on Trade facilitation 
Article  1: Publication and availability of information:  
a. Can Egypt explain the reasons behind this restriction of payments methods – economic as 
well as administrative?  
b. Which measures has Egypt taken to ensure that this change will not delay the import of 
strategic and perishable food products?  
1.27  India's export restrictions on wheat (SIM 118)  
1.27.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 102092 ) 
Australia thanks India for its response to its previous question on India 's announcement of export 
restrictions on wheat (AG -IMS ID 101019 ). In its response, India answered that the conditions of  
the implementation of the export restriction is notified in Notification 13 May 2022 issued by the 
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)  and subsequent DGFT notices. Australia notes the 
length of the restriction has not been indicated in DGFT notices.   
In light of this, could India please indicate how long it intends the restriction to remain place?  
1.27.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102078 ) 
In follow -up to the reply received from India to question AG -IMS ID 101032 , in which it states that 
the notification would be submitted "in due course", we ask  India to explain the current state of 
preparation of the notification and provide any other update with regard to its submission "in due 
course" to this Committee.   
1.27.3   Question by European Union, United States of America, Switzerland, United 
Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 102012 ) 
a. Export restriction on wheat  
On 13 May, India has announced a ban on wheat exports, with domestic prices at a record high as 
a heatwave cut prod uction (ban implemented via the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry 
Trade Notice No. 06/2022 -23).  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 15 - 
 
  According to it, the restriction would not apply in cases where prior commitments have been made 
by private trade through Letter of Credit as well as in  situations where permission is granted by the 
Government of India to other countries to meet their food security needs and on the requests of 
their governments. The government said the order served three main purposes: ensure India 's food 
security and che ck inflation, it helps other countries facing food deficit, and it maintains India 's 
reliability as a supplier.  
The ban on wheat exports imposed by India in May was already subject to several questions during 
the 101st CoA in June, some of them still to be  replied by India.  
In this context, could India reply to the following 2 additional questions?  
i. What is India 's latest soft wheat production forecast?  
ii. Considering the lately adopted decision by the membership at the MC 12 on exempting 
the World Food Program me humanitarian purchases from export restrictions, could 
India confirm that humanitarian purchases by the World Food Programme are not 
under this export restriction?   
b. Export restriction on wheat flour  
On 6 July 2022 India announced Notification No.18/2 015-2020 – an export ban for wheat flour.  
According to it, the Export Policy of wheat flour (atta) remains 'Free', but export shall be subject to 
recommendation of Inter -Ministerial Committee (IMC) on export of wheat. The Notification came 
into effect on 1 2th of July 2022. The provisions as under Para 1.05 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 
2015-2020 regarding transitional arrangement shall not be applicable under this Notification. 
Necessary modalities with regard to quality of wheat flour will be notified separ ately.  
i. Could India explain how, and on what basis the Inter - Ministerial Committee (IMC) on 
export of wheat issued the recommendations?  
ii. What will be the duration of the measure?  
iii. When does India intend to submit official notification to the WTO on export restriction 
of wheat flour?  
1.27.4   Question by United States of America, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay, United Kingdom, 
Canada, Ukraine, New Zealand , European Union  (AG-IMS ID 102021 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 101032  several Members asked for the criteria that Indi a will use to determine which 
countries are eligible for exceptions to India 's wheat export ban, how long the ban will be in place, 
and when India will notify the export restriction.  
India responded to AG -IMS ID 101032  by giving its reason for the ban, stating that India will consider 
requests from other country governments for wheat exports, and stating that the notification will be 
made in due course.   
Given this did not answer the questions in AG -IMS ID 101032  and that no Table ER:1 notification 
has been submitted, we re -submit the questions from AG -IMS ID 101032 : 
a. What criteria will the Government of India use to determine whether to grant this special 
permission?  For example, what criteria must a country meet for provision of wheat to be 
considered humanitarian aid ? Or what criteria must a country meet to demonstrate need 
of wheat to "meet their food security needs "? 
b. Please explain the length of time that the ban will be in place. If the length of time is 
contingent on certain conditions, please explain those condit ions, as well as the metrics 
used to measure when those conditions are satisfied.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 16 - 
 
  c. When will India notify this export restriction to the Committee on Agriculture through the 
required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.28  India's oilseeds policies (SIM 673)  
1.28.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102080 ) 
In follow -up to the reply received from India to question AG -IMS ID 101044 , we note that, as was 
indicated at the previous meeting of this Committee, the hyperlink provided in the reply is inactive 
and inac cessible. We therefore reiterate the request already made to India in the room to submit 
the requested information in an accessible format, including via email to the Mission of Paraguay.  
1.29  India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  
1.29.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID  102079 ) 
In follow -up to the reply received from India to question AG -IMS ID 101028 , we note that India 
indicated that the information would be provided "as soon as it is available". In this connection, we 
ask India to explain how the collection of this information is currently progressing and provide any 
other update with regard to its submission to this Committee.  
1.29.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 102081 ) 
In follow -up to the reply received from India to question AG -IMS ID 101038 , we note  that India 
indicated that the information was included in its DS:1 notification. In this connection, we ask India 
to indicate in which specific section of the DS:1 notification this information can be found.   
1.29.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 102083 ) 
New Zealand recognises well -targeted and appropriately safeguarded public stockholding 
programmes under the AoA as important for some countries ' development needs. New Zealand 
would like to thank India for their engagement thus far with Members on questions raised regarding 
their public stockholding programmes that make use of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. However, New Zealand is concerned with the lack of 
detailed responses by India to these questions (i.e. AG -IMS ID s 101087 , 101028 , 101032 , 101037 , 
101038  amongst others). As India  knows, domestic support reform is New  Zealand 's key priority in 
the agricultural negotiations, and accurate and timely notification and transparency of support is 
crucial. New  Zealand is particularly concerned by the lack of information on how India ensur es its 
minimum support price (MSP) programme for rice and wheat (as notified in G/AG/N/IND/27 ) does 
not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members, in compliance with 
paragraph 4 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes.  
India is the world 's largest exporter of rice and India 's exports have doubled over recent years. And 
at the same time India 's MSP for rice has increased by approximately 32% (2018 -2021) and sales 
on to the open market have increased from 0.85 million tonnes to  2.46 million tonnes according to 
G/AG/ N/IND/27 . We are concerned that the scale of India 's procurement of rice and wheat under 
the MSP programme has the potential to distort world markets for these products.  
To address these concerns, could India please:  
a. Provide full details of the measures an d safeguards it has in place to ensure its MSP 
programme does not have production or trade distorting effects? The details provided in 
G/AG/N/IND/27 , Annex, paragraph 4 lacks information in this regard, therefore could India 
please provide the policy documents that outline measures in place to prevent exports 
from public stockholdings, including from open market sales.  
b. Provide the relevant statistical information on the volume of wheat and rice exports and 
explain how it guarantees such exports do not originate from government stockpiles?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.29.4   Quest ion by United States of America, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada , European Union  (AG-IMS ID 102018 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 101028 , several Members requested information regarding state bonuses provided in 
addition to the minimum support price from India that has been outstanding for many Committee 
on Agriculture meetings.  
India responded that the government has sought information from the State governments and will 
inform the CoA as soon as it is available.  
a. Is the requested inform ation available?  
b. If not, please provide an update including:  
i. when the request was made to the State governments;  
ii. the time frame which India gave State governments to respond; and  
iii. whether any preliminary information has been collected.  
1.29.5   Question by United St ates of America, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada , European Union  (AG-IMS ID 102019 ) 
On a number of occasions, including most recently in AG -IMS ID 101038 , Members have reque sted 
that India provide a) where annual quantitative levels of current, historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010 can be found in India 's notifications and b) summaries of 
consultative meetings between the Government and the  Food Corporation of India (FCI), which are 
held to assess the availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum Support Prices (MSP).   
In response, India again stated that the information is in its notifications despite no Member being 
able to ide ntify this information in the notification and requesting clarification.   
We kindly request India to provide a responsive answer as to where exactly the information can be 
found.   
If it is indeed in the notification, please provide document numbers, page n umbers and table 
numbers/line letters to assist Members that have been unable to find this information.  
1.30  India's other support for rice  (SIM 743)  
1.30.1   Question by United States of America, Thailand, Japan, Brazil, Australia, Paraguay, 
Canada , European Union  (AG-IMS ID 102020 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 101037  India stated that "After consulting with relevant 
Ministries/Departments, it was found that no support other than that for the PSH purposes has been 
provided for rice ". At the last Committee meeting,  a number of Members asked a follow -up question 
to this, requesting that India confirm a) whether this response referred to only central -government 
support or if it also included state -level support and b) whether any support has been provided for 
rice oth er than that which India has already notified.   
a. Please explain whether India has consulted with state governments to confirm whether 
there are any additional sub -national rice support measures and if there are any other 
state-level support measures that ar e not notified.  
b. Please explain whether there are any other support measures related to PSH purposes 
that have not been notified, beyond the state bonuses India is currently collecting.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.31  Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permi ts 
(SIM  655)  
1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102036 ) 
The United States thanks the Philippines for providing the import volume data for whole chicken for 
2018-May 2021 in its response to AG -IMS ID 98131 .  
 
a. Has the Philippines imported any whole chicken in 2021 and 2022?  
b. If so, please provide the volume and country -of-origin of the imports.   
c. Does the Philippines restrict imports of whole chickens f rom trading partners other than 
the United States and, if so, why?  
1.31.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102037 ) 
The United States remains concerne d that the SPSIC system is used to restrict the flow of trade.  
On 22 February, 2022, the Department of Agriculture Secretary announced that the Department of 
Agriculture "aims to address the concerns of the onion industry to manage onion importation while 
ensuring its availability for the local market, thus additional guidelines and requirements shall be 
implemented on the issuance of [SPSIC] " and "that the issuance of SPSICs for fresh onion will be 
based on the importation period specified in the Certifica te of Necessity to Import (CNI), which shall 
include the volume to be imported and the specific period for import arrival. " 
This measure is cited to be based on the 14 December 2021 Department Circular No.  08, series 
of 2021 or the Additional Guidelines on  the Importation of Fresh Onions.   
 
a. Please explain how restricting the volume of imports over a given period via the 
CNI requirement prior to the issuance of SPSIC is different from a quantitative restriction, 
and explain the phytosanitary justification fo r implementing the CNI.   
b. Has 2021 Department Circular No. 08, Series of 2021, or the Additional Guidelines on the 
Importation of Fresh Onions been notified to the appropriate World Trade Organization 
committee(s), and could the Philippines provide a copy to Members?   
c. What is the volume of the CNI and how is it determined?   
On 10 August 2022, the Department of Agriculture Under Secretary stated the Department is looking 
at importing white onions and "how much we will import and up to when we will do so , we will have 
to discuss this with producers so as not to have the imported onions come in at the same time 
farmers harvest their crops. "  
 
d. Please explain the role of the Department of Agriculture and the domestic Philippine onion 
industry in determining the volume of onions allowed to be imported.  
1.32  Tajikistan's poultry tariffs (SIM 687)  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102030 ) 
The United States  would like to thank the Republic of Tajikistan for its responses to U.S. questions 
concerning Tajikistan 's poultry tariff resolution ( G/MA/W/167 ) in the Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 98139 ) and through Tajikistan 's Trade Policy Review.   
The United States notes that Tajikistan 's reasoning for raising its poultry tariff rate to 15 %, above 
its bound rate of 10 %, was due to conce rns about the potential for low quality of imported product 
and the effect on public health, significant increases in imports of poultry products, and the 
development of Tajikistan 's poultry industry.  Based on this response, the United States has 
additional questions for Tajikistan.   G/AG/W/222  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. Please clarify which specific articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
1994, WTO Agreement on Agriculture, or other WTO agreements it is citing to justify the 
tariff increase above the bound rate.  
b. Please clarify what Tajikistan meant by "low quality of imported product and the effect on 
public health, " in its response to the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 98139 ). Is 
Tajikistan referencing a specific WTO agreement? If so, which one(s)?  
c. Have poultry imports violated Tajikistan 's sanitary and phytosanitary regulatory 
standards?  If so, please provide the specific standards.  
d. Please explain how raising tariffs on imported poultry is an effective measure towards 
protecting public health.  
e. Noting Tajikistan 's concern with "significant increases in imports of poultry, " has Tajikistan 
conducted  an economic study pursuant to Article XIX of the GATT which demonstrates a 
significant increase in imports and that the level of imported poultry products caused or 
threatens serious injury to domestic industry? If so, please share this study.  
f. Please clar ify how long Tajikistan intends to keep this tariff rate above its bound rate.   
1.33  Tajikistan's new Tax Code (SIM 702)  
1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 102031 ) 
The United States would like to thank the Republic of Tajikistan for responding to U.S. questions 
regarding tax incentives in Tajikistan 's tax code (AG -IMS ID 98138 ).  
In its response, Tajikistan confirms that Article 414, Chapter 57 of the tax code exempts domestic 
"business entities in the field of poultry farming, fish farming , and the production of combined feed 
for bird and animals " from paying taxes on income, VAT, real estate, and land for a period of six 
years.   
 
a. Please confirm that the exemption (Article 414, Chapter 57) in the tax code still applies.   
b. Please clarify if imports of foreign poultry products are subject to a VAT or any other 
internal taxes.   
1.34  Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.34.1   Question by United States of America, Switzerland, Japan, United Kingdom 
(AG-IMS ID 102029 ) 
The United States thanks Türkiye for its response to the joint question by the United States, 
United  Kingdom, and Japan (AG -IMS ID 101042 ).  
In Türkiye 's reply it cited authorities granted in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(GATT) for its justification for imposing these export bans on 20 different agricultural 
commodities.  The United States would remind Türkiye that as a WTO Member it agreed to notify 
export restrictions imposed on products for which Türkiye is a net -food exporter, even for those 
temporary in nature, to the WTO Committee on Agriculture.   
a.  When does Türkiye intend to notify its export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture 
through the required Table ER:1 notification?  
The United States remains concerne d with Türkiye 's export restrictions and the lack of transparency 
around them, including the inability to find the announcement of the export restrictions, the start or 
end date of the restrictions, or the regulation giving the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry  (MinAF) 
the authority to impose restrictions.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 20 - 
 
  As a signatory of the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation, Türkiye agreed to promptly publish in 
an easily accessible manner import, export, or transit restrictions or prohibitions (Article  1, 
paragrap h 1.1:f).  
b. Please provide a copy of or link to both the authorities given to MinAF and the 
regulations/documentation of MinAF implementing these authorities for specific 
commodities.   
1.35  U.S. domestic support programmes (SIM 660)  
1.35.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 102129 ) 
a. The United States may please provide details and explain the differences in the operation 
of the following programmes:   
i. Price Loss Coverage;   
ii. Counter Cyclical Payments; and   
iii. Agri Risk Payments. " 
b. It is seen that there is a rise in support for Marketing and Promotion Services under Green 
Box in the year 2019 -20; the US may kindly provide the reasons for such an increase. " 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.1.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/70)  
AG-IMS ID 102002: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The EU would like to thank Brazil for the submission of the MA:2 notification for the calendar 
year 2021. Could Brazil explain the reasons behind the underfill of BRAQ002? What changes did the 
Ordinance n°38 of 19 June 2020, referenced in the footnote to BRAQ002, introduce to the 
administration of BRAQ002?  
2.1.2   Dominican Rep ublic (G/AG/N/DOM/48)  
AG-IMS ID 102003: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The EU would like to thank the Dominican Republic for the submission of the MA:2 notification for 
the calendar year 2021. When analysing previous MA:2 notifications the EU noted that for many 
years the tariff quota for poultry (DOMQ001) has constantly had a fill rate of 0%, whereas the fill 
rate in 2021 soared to over 100%. Could the Dominican Republic explain what changed that allowed 
the full use of this quota?  
2.1.3   El Salva dor (G/AG/N/SLV/82)  
AG-IMS ID 102064: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Transparency issues  
In follow -up to the reply received from El Salvador to question AG -IMS ID  101018, could El Salvador 
explain the reasons why the other tariff quotas are not open?  
2.1.4   Europ ean Union (G/AG/N/EU/76)  
AG-IMS ID 102098: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
In the MA:2 notifications ( G/AG/N/EU/76 ), the EU has notified zero or near zero fill rate on husked 
(brown) rice and broken rice. India requests the European Union to provide details on the following:  
 
a. Reasons for such a low fill rate?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 21 - 
 
  b. What actions are being undertaken to increase the fill rates?  
AG-IMS ID 102097: Question by India - Scheduled commitment level  
India thanks the European Union for its submission of DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/EU/79 ) for the 
marketing year 2019 -20. The AMS entitlement of the EU is mentioned as EUR 72,378 million in the 
submitted notification. The United Kingdom  on the other hand has claimed an AMS entitlement of 
EUR 5,914.1 million or GBP 4 ,949.3 million in its latest DS notification ( G/AG/N/GBR/11 ) for calendar 
year 2021. In this context, what would be the applica ble AMS entitlement for the remaining member 
of the EU (EU -27)? 
2.1.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/28)  
AG-IMS ID 102110: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil has raised the underfill issue regarding India 's TRQ INDQ002 - Maize (corn) in previous 
occasions (AG -IMS ID 97128  and 99048 ). Once again, there have been no imports under such TRQ 
during financial year from 202 1-04-01 to 2022 -03-31.  
In this regard, Brazil would like to request India to provide the following information:   
a. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ? How much has India imported under tariff 
line 100590 from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022?   
b. What were the applied intra -quota and extra -quota tariffs?  
c. Who/what body is entitled to apply for the allocation of the tariff rate quota?  
2.1.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/278)  
AG-IMS ID 102111: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Japan for submitting its mo st recent MA:2 notification ( G/AG/N/JPN /278). In that 
submission, Australia notes very low fill rates for the following quotas:   
JPNQ001 - Skimmed milk powder (For school lunch) – 20.7% filled of 7,264 metric tonne quota  
JPNQ002 - Skimmed milk powder (For other purposes) – 22% filled of 74,973 metric tonne quota  
JPNQ007 - Prepared whey (For infant formula) – 15.3% filled of 25,000 metric tonne quota  
JPNQ008 - Butter and butteroil – 3.8% filled of 581 metric tonne quota   
Australia also notes that tariff rate quotas for butter (7,600 MT) an d non -fat dairy milk (750 MT) for 
Japan's current fiscal year have been maintained at the same level as Japan's last fiscal year.   
Can Japan please explain the need to maintain these special TRQ, given that existing skimmed milk 
powder and butter quotas re main underfilled?  
2.1.7   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/13)  
AG-IMS ID 102004: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU would like to thank Kazakhstan for the submission of the MA:2 notification for the calendar 
year 2020. Could Kazakhstan inform the member ship when it expects to submit its MA:2 notification 
for 2021? Could Kazakhstan also provide a reply to the question asked by the EU under 
AG-IMS 93189  from 93rd CoA meeting?  
2.1.8   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/89)  
AG-IMS ID 102084: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
In Korea 's latest MA:2 notification, the fill rates for dairy products and  natural honey ranged 
between  40% and 4%. Does the Republic of Korea have any plans to change tariff quota 
administration with the aim of increasing the low fill rates for dairy and honey products in the future?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.1.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/121)  
AG-IMS ID 102065: Qu estion by Paraguay, Brazil - Transparency issues  
Paraguay and Brazil thank Norway for submitting notification G/AG/N/NOR/121  on the fill of its tariff 
quotas (MA:2). On the cover page of this document, Norway states that: " For other current access 
quotas included in Norway's Schedule, as of 200 0 the bound MFN tariff has been at the level of the 
in-quota tariff. A tariff -only regime applies to these TRQs from 2000 and onwards. Since Norway has 
fulfilled its commitments, for the current access quotas with a tariff -only regime, these will not be a 
part of the notification ". 
While we note that this declaration has been included in Norway's MA:2 notifications since 2001 
(G/AG/N/NOR/38 ), we recall that Paraguay and Brazil, along with a number of other Members, has 
reservations about Norway's proposed modification of its schedule of commitmen ts, which has 
sought to eliminate these tariff quotas since 2020. The reasons for these reservations have been 
fully explained to the delegation of Norway at the bilateral level and stem from systemic concerns 
that Norway has been unable to address to our satisfaction.  
Could Norway indicate which section of the current transparency obligations provides the grounds 
for this unilateral decision to not notify certain quotas that continue to form part of its schedule of 
commitments and have not been eliminated?  We ask that Norway indicate the specific rules that 
allow a Member to decide which quotas form part of its notification and which do not, particularly in 
cases where the proposed changes to the schedule of commitments have not been accepted.   
AG-IMS ID 10 2112: Question by United Kingdom - Tariff quota fill  
The United Kingdom thanks Norway for its recent submission of G/AG/N/NOR/121 . We note that 
Norway has recorded a 100% fill rate for NORQ032. Could Norway please confirm whether the fill 
rate reported excludes imports under any preferential te rms offered by Norway on the same product 
bilaterally? If not, could Norway please explain how usage of this TRQ has been determined?  
2.1.10   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/60)  
AG-IMS ID 102113: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Panama for submitting its 2021 calendar year MA:2 notification G/AG/N/PAN/60 . 
Australia notes that Panama has again reported nil, or close to nil, fill rates for ten TRQs across dairy 
and other agricultural products. We note that multiple TRQs remain underfilled from the 
2020 notification ( G/AG/N/PAN/59 ). 
a. Can Panama  explain the reasons for the underfill of its quotas?  
b.  Could Panama explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, 
as per the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Australia has asked this question previously (AG -IMS ID 101021 ) and note Panama has still not 
provided a response. Australia would appreciate Panama u pdating the membership as to whether 
this information is available.  
AG-IMS ID 102005: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Can Panama explain the reasons behind the 0% fill rate of its "Milk and milk products " quotas 
(PANQ008, PANQ009, PANQ011), its "liquid Milk " and related "other " quota (PANQ004, PANQ005), 
and its "Processed cheese " quota (PANQ013) in their in table MA:2 for  the calendar year 2021?  
2.1.11   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/82)  
AG-IMS ID 102039: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
WTO Notification G/AG/N/PHL/82  indicates in 2021, Philippine in -quota corn imports 
totalled  216,940  metric ton nes. G/AG/W/222  
 
- 23 - 
 
  According to the Philippines Statistics Authority,  in 2021, the Philippines imported a total 
of 459,581  metric ton nes of corn under Harmonized System (HS) heading 1005; Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) accounted for 439,278 metric ton nes or 96 % of total imported 
corn. 
It is noted that ASEAN members, including the Philippines eliminated all Tariff -Rate Quotas (TRQs) 
for other ASEAN members under Article 20 of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement and the 
Philippines ' schedule has a tariff of 5 %. This compares to the most -favoured -nation (MFN) in -quota 
rate of 35 % and out -quota rate of 50 %. 
This disadvantages the MFN trading partners of the Philippines who do not have access to the lower 
in-quota tariff because the MFN in -quota volume is filled by trading partners with prefer ential tariff 
treatment.  The United States also notes that other ASEAN members exclude preferential imports 
from other ASEAN members in the calculation of their WTO tariff -rate quota fill.   
 
a. Please confirm the total quantity of corn that was imported in 20 21 at a preferential rate, 
and the total quantity imported at the MFN rate during that same time period.   
b. Why does the Philippines count its corn imports from regional trade agreements such as 
ASEAN, as part of its WTO tariff rate quota fill when many of t he Philippines ' regional trade 
agreement partners exclude preferential imports from the calculation of their WTO tariff 
rate quota fill?   
c. Please confirm whether the Philippines includes imports of popcorn (1005.90.10) and seed 
corn (1005.10.00) as part of its in-quota volume fill.  
AG-IMS ID 102114: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil has noticed a reduced fill -rate (11.2%) in Philippines ' TRQ PHLQ006 (Beef) during calendar  
year 2021.Could the Philippines provide data or information on any circumst ances, including the 
difference of applied intra -quota and extra -quota tariffs and extra -quota import volume, that would 
explain the relatively low volume of imports under the aforementioned TRQ?  
AG-IMS ID 102099: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fil l 
The latest MA:2 notification put forward by the Philippines records the fill rate for beef at 11.2%. 
Does the Philippines have any plans to change tariff quota administration with the aim of increasing 
the low fill rate for beef products in the future?  
2.1.12   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/13)  
AG-IMS ID 102115: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the United Kingdom for submitting its 2021 marketing year MA:2 notification, 
G/AG/N/GBR/13 . Australia has previously questioned in AG -IMS ID 100090  low rill rates for a range 
of the UK 's quotas and notes that this is the second year of very low utilisation rates of a range of 
quotas, including the meat of bovine animals quotas (GBRQ001 – GBRQ007). While fill rates of these 
quotas has improved over the past year, given COVID -19 related restrictions have now largely been 
lifted in the United Kingdom, they still remain very low.  
Could the United Kingdom  please provide additional detail on the administration of these quotas?  
AG-IMS ID 102116: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil has raised the underfill issue regarding some of the UK 's TRQs in previous occasions (AG -IMS 
ID 99052  and ID 100043 ).  
According to notification G/AG/N/GBR/13 , there have been no imports under TRQ GBRQ007 during 
marketing year from 2021 -07-01 to 2022 -06-30 and imports under TRQs GBRQ064 and GBRQ067 
were 58.2% and 6.2% lower, respectively.   
a. Could the United Kingdom  provide data or information on any circumstance, including the 
difference of applied intra -quota and extra -quota tariffs and extra -quota import volumes, 
that would explain the low volume of impo rts under the aforementioned TRQs?   G/AG/W/222  
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. Is Regulation 1432/2020, which establishes a performance requirement to apply for 
licenses, affecting fill -rates of such TRQs?  
AG-IMS ID 102066: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
Paraguay thanks the United Kingdom  for submitting notification G/AG/N/GBR /13 on tariff quota fill 
(MA:2). We note with concern the underfill of quotas GBRQ001 (20.7%), GBRQ002 (15%), GBRQ004 
(30.2%) and GBRQ007 (0%). In this connection, could the United Kingdom:  
a. Explain the reasons for the underfill of these quotas?  
b. Indicate wh ether it is considering amending its administration method, in accordance with 
the Bali Decision, in order to guarantee an increased fill of these quotas?  
c. Explain notes (1) and (2) on the joint administration of quotas GBRQ003 and GBRQ005 
with quota GBRQ00 1 and the impact that this may have on the fill of these three tariff 
quotas?  
AG-IMS ID 102117: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand thanks the United Kingdom for its notification G/AG/N/GBR/13  and would like to have more 
information concerning imports under tariff rate quota durin g the marketing year from 1  July 2021 
to 30 June 2022.  
a. Could the United Kingdom explain the reason for the empty fill rate of the UK TRQ 
ID GBRQ015 (Fresh chicken cuts chilled or frozen)?  
b. Could the United Kingdom explain the reason for the TRQ's underfill rate for the UK TRQ 
ID GBRQ064 (Process uncooked chicken meat containing 57% or more weight of poultry 
meat or offal)?  
c. Thailand noted in this notification that the United Kingdom did not report the tariff rate 
quota fill rate for rice imports. As a result,  could the United Kingdom  explain why the 
aforementioned information was not included in the notification?  
2.1.13   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/162)  
AG-IMS ID 102104: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
In the recent MA:2 notification ( G/AG/N/USA/162 ) of the USA, the fill rates for many agric ultural 
products such as cotton -related products (USAQ049, USAQ050, USAQ051), chocolate (USAQ036), 
cheese (USAQ019, USAQ023) and dried milk (USAQ006) is significantly low. India requests the 
Untied States to provide details on the following:  
a. the reasons fo r the underfill, or zero -fill rate of the products?  
b. What actions are being undertaken to increase the fill rates?  
AG-IMS ID 102001: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
Switzerland welcomes the United States of America 's notification on imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during 2021. We note the low fill rate of 56% of TRQ USA Q024 concerning "Swiss and 
Emmentaler cheese with eye formation ". The quota is subdivided into several country specific 
quotas. Their respec tive quantities no longer seem to reflect current trade flows.   
a. Is the United States of America planning any specific steps in order to increase the fill 
rates of this quota?  
b. The Bali Decision on tariff rate quota administration requests the importing Mem ber to 
contact private operators holding unused entitlements in order to make them available to 
other potential users (para. 9). Is the USA issuing such requests to holders of unused 
entitlements in order to make them available for other importers?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 25 - 
 
  2.2  Special  agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5 ) 
2.2.1   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  
AG-IMS ID 102040: Question by United States of America - Trigger calculations  
In G/AG/N/PHL/53 , the Philippines states the average Trigger Price is "weighted average by import 
volume. " Further, it is noted that the same Trigger Price is used for both chicken wings (0207.14.10), 
frozen poultry offal and other cuts (0207.14.99), and fresh or chilled poultry meat and edible offal 
(0207.11.00).  
Please provide calculation methodology, including all necessary data (e.g., the vo lume of imports 
(in kilograms)), used to derive the special safeguard trigger -price for tariff item number 0207.14.10, 
0207.14.99, and 0207.11.00.  
2.2.2   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/81)  
AG-IMS ID 102118: Question by Indonesia - Transparency issues  
Indonesia notes tha t the Philippines has notified recently the application of SSG for instant coffee 
products that has been carried out for more than four years in the document G/AG/N/PHL/81  for the 
calendar year of 2021.   
Indonesia has raised questions on the said issue at the 100th Meeting of the COA in March  2022. 
Indonesia appreciates the Philippines for its response.   
Following the Philippines ' response, Indonesia would like to inform the Philippines that Indonesia has 
adjusted the CIF price for instant coffee, in particular for the single packs, above the trigger price.  
Subsequently, Indonesia would like to inquire to the Philippines whether th ey have been informed 
about this updated price?   
Furthermore, Indonesia also would like to seek clarification and explanation whether the application 
of the SSG will still be in place for Indonesian instant coffee in light of the adjusted CIF price?   
Lastly, Indonesia would like to request the Philippines to further explain the progress on the 
implementation of the SSG measure. In this regard, Indonesia wishes to refer to Paragraph  5.7, 
Article  5 of the AoA, which requires the applicant Member to provide tr ansparency in the 
implementation of SSG in writing, including the latest data.   
Therefore, would the Philippines kindly elaborate further on this matter?   
2.3  Domestic support commitments (Table DS :1) 
2.3.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/49, G/AG/N/ARG/50, G/AG/N/ARG/51)  
AG-IMS ID 102006: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU has noticed that Argentina prepared its notifications by using the "1992 peso ". In this regard:  
a. Can Argentina indicate the exchange rate used for calculation from "current peso " to 
"1992 peso"?  
The applied administered price was 0.69 per kg ( G/AG/N/ARG/50  for agricultural year 2018/2019). 
The administered price was increased to 1 per kg for agricultural year 2019/2020 ( G/AG/N/ARG/51 ) 
and also the quantity of the eligible prod uction was increased by approx.10 million kg.  
 
b. Could Argentina explain the reasons behind the increased administered price for tobacco?  
c. Could Argentina confirm the link between the increased price and the increase in the 
production?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 26 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 102120: Quest ion by United Kingdom - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
The United Kingdom thanks Argentina for its recent submission of G/AG/N/ARG/51 . The United 
Kingdom is interested in the support notified under Measure Type 11: 'Structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids ' in Supporting Table DS:1. In particular, the 
United  Kingdom would appreciate further information on:  
a. How Argentina interprets the concept of "objectively demonstrated structural 
disadvantage " in relat ion to eligibility for payments?   
b. How does Argentina ensure that such payments are 'limited to the amount required to 
compensate for the structural disadvantage '? 
AG-IMS ID 102119: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks Arg entina for submitting its 2019 -20 agricultural year DS:1 notification 
G/AG/N/ARG/51 . Australia notes Argentina has reported soya beans as receiving product -specific 
support as part of a stimulus programme measure.  
Could Argentina please provide further details of the measures, including the typ e of payments, the 
eligibility criteria and the duration of the measure?  
AG-IMS ID 102041: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
In 2017/2018, Argentina reported a support price of 0.69 1992 pesos per kilogram for tobacco, 
applied to 104,093,000 kilograms, and market price support of 71,983,580 in 1992 pesos.  
In 2018/2019, Argentina reported a support price of 0.66 1992 pesos per kilogram for tobacco, 
applied to 107,349,000 kilograms, and market price support of 71,056,788 in  1992 pesos.  
In 2019/2020, Argentina reported a support price of 1 1992 peso per kilogram for tobacco, applied 
to 112,856,000 kilograms, and market price support of 74,181,773 in 1992 pesos.  
Based on this information, the support price provided to farmers went down slightly from 2017/2018 
to 2018/2019, and then went up quite sharply in 2019/2020.  
Does Argentina take into account market conditions when setting the support price for tobacco, or 
is the support price based solely on the calculation of the maxim um support Argentina has policy 
space to provide?  
2.3.2   Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/30, G/AG/N/BOL/31, 
G/AG/N/BOL/32)  
AG-IMS ID 102042: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States welcomes t he efforts undertaken by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to bring its 
Table DS:1 notifications up to date.   
It is noted that calendar year 2019 was the first year the Plurinational State of  Bolivia has notified 
domestic support, which is comprised solel y of support under Supporting Table DS:1.   
Since 2019, the Plurinational State of Bolivia has notified support for "Implementing the plant health 
system for the coffee sector at the national level. Persons with disabilities ". 
In 2020, this measure references Law 223, which the United States understands was enacted 
in 2012.  
The Plurinational State of  Bolivia has also notified support for research under "The National 
Agricultural and Forestry Initiate… ", which references Supreme Decree No. 2454.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 27 - 
 
  The U nited States understands that this Decree is dated from 2015.   
a. Please confirm whether or not the Plurinational State of  Bolivia provided any domestic 
support prior to 2019.  
b. When will the Plurinational State of  Bolivia be submitting a Table DS:2 notification as 
required for all newly notified exempt domestic support measures?  
c. In light of no Table DS:2 notification to date, please explain how "persons with 
disabilities "/"personas con discapacidad " at the end of the description of the 2 (b) Pest 
and disease control measure in Supporting Table DS:1 relates to the pest and disease 
control measures notified.  
2.3.3   Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/35)  
AG-IMS ID 102121: Question by Thailand - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
According to n otification G/AG/N/BWA/35  on domestic s upport for fiscal year 2020/2021, Botswana 
spent 738.70 million BWP to support low -income or resource -poor producers. Could Botswana 
provide more information on the eligibility criteria for low -income or resource -poor producers to 
participate in the aforem entioned project, as well as the payment rate for farmers?  
2.3.4   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/66, G/AG/N/CUB/67)  
AG-IMS ID 102014: Question by Japan - General services: training services  
Japan thanks Cuba for its submission of DS:1 notifications, G/AG/N/CUB/66  and G/AG/N/CUB/67 . 
Japan would like to ask Cuba to explain the reason behind and illustrate  the detail s of "Education 
and vocational training in rural areas " under 2 (c). The monetary value of support under t raining 
services in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/CUB/66  (CY2021)soared by 1,280% from the previous 
year (CY2020: 2,682.4 million CUP to CY2021: 37,094 million CUP).  
2.3.5   European U nion (G/AG/N/EU/79)  
AG-IMS ID 102122: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting its 2019 -20 marketing year DS:1 notification G/AG/N/EU/79 . 
Australia notes the significant increase in Green Box spending between MY17 -18 to MY19 -20 from 
EUR 65,846 million to EUR 68,516 million largely owing to increases in spending to structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids.  
Could the EU please explain the policy rationale for this significant increase under this pro gramme?  
AG-IMS ID 102068: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Paraguay and Brazil thank the European Union for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/79  and notes 
the following:   
A EUR 192.5 million increase in its current total AMS   
Could the EU explain the rea sons for this increase?   
a. For the following items in particular: fruit and vegetables, common wheat, potatoes, other 
crops products, flowers and cider; and  
b. For non -product -specific AMS.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 102069: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Paraguay and Brazil thank the European Union for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/79  and notes 
the following:  
Change in the reporting format of non -product -specific AMS and the inclusion of new items . 
a. Could the EU explain the reason for the change in format of the reported measures?   
b. Could the EU provide more information on the new measures, including: "Horizontal 
support in the Fruit and Vegetables sector: green harvesting and non -harvesting" and 
"Horizontal support in the Fruit and Vegetables sector:  harvest insurance"?  
c. Could the EU clarify the criteria for the classification as non -product -specific AMS of 
programmes geared specifically towards fruit and vegetables?   
AG-IMS ID 102070: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Paraguay and Brazil thank the European Union for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/79  and note 
the following:  
A EUR 629.9 million increase in the Green Box, particularly paragraphs 2(a), 2(g), 4 and 11.   
a. Could the EU explain the reasons for the increase in these types of measures?  
b. Could the EU explain how animal welfare is related to pest and disease control, or whether 
this programme should be included under another category? Could the EU also explain the 
EUR 217.8 million increase in this paragraph?   
AG-IMS ID 102067: Question by Paragu ay, Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
Paraguay and Brazil thank the European Union for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/79  and notes 
the following:   
The maintenance of the total AMS commitment level:   
Could the EU provide an update on the status of the amendment to its commitments to reflect  a 
reduction in its AMS entitlement that is identical to that notified by the United Kingdom as part of 
its withdrawal from the European Union?   
AG-IMS ID 102123: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting  its 2019 -20 marketing year (MY) DS:1 notification 
G/AG/N/EU/79 . Australia notes an increase in spending shown in Supporting Table DS:6 of 
EUR 320 million between MY19 -20 and MY18 -19. This is across a range of commodities including 
milk, beef, sheep, pig, fruit and vegetables.  The EU has listed  the measure types as national aid 
'covid measure '.  
a. Could the EU please elaborate on the variation to the level of support reported in this 
table?  
b. Could the EU please indicate whether it expects further increases to this level of support 
and are similar v ariations expected for other commodities listed in Supporting Table DS:6?  
AG-IMS ID 102124: Question by Thailand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
According to notification G/AG/N/EU/79  on domestic support for fisc al year 2020/2021, the European 
Union spent 130.10 million euros on national aid for the sugar support measure. Could the European 
Union provide more information on the above - mentioned measures, as well as the procedures and 
criteria for farmers to apply for such government assistance?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 102016: Question by Japan - Non-product -specific AMS  
Japan thanks the EU for its submission of DS:1 notification G/AG/N/EU/79 . 
Japan notes EU 's 2.9 million EUR of fertilizer subsidy notified as Non -Product -Specific AMS in 
Supporting Table DS:9 of DS:1 n otification, which were notified twice in the last decade (MY2016/17: 
EUR 1.0 million, MY2017/18: EUR 1.1 million), and no notification in MY2018/19 DS:1. Would the 
EU please provide some details of this support programme including its eligibility criteria ?  
Recognizing that the EU Farm to Fork Strategy in May 2020 set a target of reducing fertilizer use by 
at least 20% by 2030, Japan would like to know whether the programme would be adjusted to 
achieve the F2F target or it is to be phased out.  
2.3.6   Georgia (G/A G/N/GEO/25)  
AG-IMS ID 102043: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In Georgia 's January 2022 Trade Policy Review (TPR) the Secretariat reported that Georgia 's Ministry 
of Environmental Protection and Agriculture  provided 243.5 million Georgian lari (GEL) in subsidies 
to the agricultural sector in 2020 ( WT/TPR/S/420/Rev.1  page 102).  
In Georgia 's 2020 Table DS:1 domestic support notification ( G/AG/N/GEO/25 ) the total notified 
domestic support was GEL 150.9 million.  
There also appeared to be other discrepancies noted in the TPR with regards to measures that appear 
to have not been included in Georgia 's domestic support notifications an d a lack of required Table 
DS:2 notifications.  In responses to questions raised by Members, Georgia informed Members that it 
would submit the respective notifications in the first half of 2022.  
a. Please provide an update on the status of Georgia submitting r evised Table  DS:1 
notification to account for noted discrepancies.  
b. Please provide an update on the status of submitting the required Table DS:2 notifications 
for any new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction commitments.  
2.3.7   Hong Kong, Ch ina (G/AG/N/HKG/52)  
AG-IMS ID 102044: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Hong Kong , China  for submitting G/AG/N/HKG/52 .  
Hong Kong 's prior Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/HKG/50 ) included expenditures for Anti -epidemic 
fund 2.0 under "6. Decoupled income support ". 
G/AG/N/HKG/52  includes expenditures for Anti -epidemic fund 5.0 and Anti -epidemic fund 6.0.  
Please explain why Anti -epidemic fund 3.0 and Anti -epidemic fund 4.0 were not listed in Hong  Kong's 
DS:1 notifications.  
Did these funds not contain support for agriculture?  
2.3.8   India (G/AG/N/IND/27)  
AG-IMS ID 102007: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU thanks India to its partial reply to the question AG -IMS 101012 , and recall point (b) of that 
question:   G/AG/W/222  
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. In its reply to question AG -IMS ID 98056  India indicated that some of the quantities in end stocks 
was not husked rice. Can India indicate which quantity in the end stocks that husked, semi -milled 
or milled rice for the years 2019 -20 and 2020 -21. 
Can India reply to this question using comparable  figures preferably by indicating in the stock figures 
(both beginning and end stocks) on how much is:  
- Paddy ;  
- Semi-milled ; and  
- Milled. 
AG-IMS ID 102082: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In follow -up to the reply received from India to question AG -IMS ID 101087 , we note that, as was 
indicated at the previous m eeting of this Committee, the hyperlink provided in the reply is inactive 
and inaccessible. We therefore reiterate the request already made to India in the room to submit 
the requested information in an accessible format, including via email to the Mission  of Paraguay.   
AG-IMS ID 102025: Question by United States of America, Paraguay, New Zealand - 
Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We would like thank India for the responses it provided to AG -IMS ID 101087 ; however, India did 
not respond to all of the questions. We therefore resubmit the following questions:  
a. We recognize the mathematic al reason for the steady increase in Current Total AMS 
between the period 2018 -2019 and the period 2020 -2021 but would appreciate a 
more explanatory reason for the factors behind the changes in the applied administered 
price and eligible production.  
b. What p olicies or reforms is India implementing or considering to achieve its food security 
objectives in a manner consistent with WTO rules?  
c. Please explain the steady increase in open market sales of public stocks between  2018 
and 2021.  
d. Please provide informatio n on monitoring mechanisms to ensure that these sales do not 
end up in international markets. The link provided ( http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 ) 
times out without ever loading and gives the error "This site can 't be reached. "  
2.3.9   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/277)  
AG-IMS ID 102100: Question by New Zealand - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
New Zealand would appreciate further information regarding the public stockholding programme 
notified in Japan 's DS:1 table for 2020/2021:  
Public stockholding: public stockholding of rice, wheat and feedgrains - 18 JPY, billion  
Can Japan give more insight into the programme, and confirm when a DS:2 notification will be 
provided?  
AG-IMS ID 102105: Question by India - Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids  
We thank Japan for submitting its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/JPN/277  for the fiscal  year 2020 -2021.  
In 2019 -2020 notification ( G/AG/N/JPN/276 ), under the Green box (Supporting Table DS:1), an 
expenditure of JPY 4.7 billion was notified for the measure 'Agricultural loans: interest concessions 
for government programmed agricultural loans ', while in 2020 -21 notification ( G/AG/N/JPN/27 7) the 
expenditure for the same measure was JPY 49.9 billion which amounts to an increase by 961.70%. 
In this context, India requests Japan to provide:  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 31 - 
 
  a. the reason for this increase;  
b. provide the details related to agricultural loans eligible for interest co ncession under this 
measure; and  
c. what is the term of these loans?  
AG-IMS ID 102106: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In DS:1 notification G/AG/N/JPN/277 , Supporting Table DS:9 (Non -Product Specific AMS), Japan 
has mentioned a measure "Support for production in the next crop season t o cope with the 
COVID - 19 pandemic " with 158.5 billion JPY. India requests Japan to provide the details of this 
measure?  
2.3.10   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/53)  
AG-IMS ID 102125: Question by Thailand - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
According to notification G/AG/N/MYS/53  on domestic support for fiscal year 2020/2021, Malaysia 
spent 497 million MYR on the Paddy Price Subsidy (PPS) measure to support low -income or 
resource -poor rice farmers and to improve rice farmers' socioeconomic well -being. Could Malaysia 
provide more inf ormation on the eligibility criteria for low -income or resource -poor producers to 
participate in the aforementioned?  
2.3.11   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/85)  
AG-IMS ID 102126: Question by Brazil - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Brazil notices that the Philippines has notified, in Supporting Table DS:2, a notable increase in 
expenditures under "Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers ", from 
PHP 5,593,702 thousand in 2020 to PHP 14,188,318 thousand in 2021.  Brazil would appreciate it if 
the Philippines could explain the reason(s) behind such a difference between 2020 and 2021.  
AG-IMS ID 102015: Question by Japan - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Japan thanks Philippines for it s submission of DS:1 notification G/AG/ N/PHL/85 . 
Regarding Philippines ' Development Programme (b) Provision of access to farm inputs, Japan notices 
that the increase of the support is more than double (CY2020: 5,593,702 thousand PHP to 
CY2021:  14,188,318 thousand PHP). Could Philippines please explain the reason behind and 
illustrate the details of the support?  
2.3.12   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/114)  
AG-IMS ID 102077: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes  
Paraguay and Brazil thank Switzerland for subm itting notification G/AG/N/CHE/114 . We note that in 
paragraph 13 of the Green Box "Regional assistance programmes" Switzerland includes 
"Contribution to the maintenance of an open landscape" and "Contribution to landscape quality":  
a. Which disadvantaged regions are receiving those payments?  
b. What impartial and objective criteria, set out in law or regulation, are used to identify 
those regions as underprivileged?  
c. How would direct payments related to landscape maintenance and landscape quality lead 
to overcoming the difficulties faced by this r egion?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 32 - 
 
  d. What are the additional costs or income losses resulting from carrying out agricultural 
production in this region that direct payments seek to compensate?  
2.3.13   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 102108: Question by India - Transparency issues (incl uding Table DS:2)  
With regard to UK 's DS:1 Notification G/AG/N/GBR/11  dated 4 April/2022, the Calendar Year 2021, 
the following is requested:  
a. As per the Supporting Table DS:1 Para 2 (f): Marketing and promotion services, the 
United  Kingdom  has disbursed 42.18 million GBP through payment agenci es towards 
marketing campaigns; support to producer groups; stimulation of farmer/producer 
markets; promotion of quality and accreditation schemes. The United Kingdom  may 
explain how it supports the producer groups and provide the details of the programmes . 
b. As per the Supporting Table DS:1 Para 6: Decoupled income support, the United Kingdom  
is continuing with the previous EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Is the 
United  Kingdom  planning changes in the decoupled income support measures? If so, 
details of t he same may be provided.  
c. As per the Supporting Table DS:1 Para 13, the United Kingdom  has mentioned it provides 
annual support to farmers and crofters operating in constrained areas (Scotland). It is 
requested to provide details of these programmes, including the eligibility criteria to 
receive support under this measure.  
d. As per the Suppor ting Table DS:1 Para 14: other Direct Payments, certain Covid response 
measures are provided by the United Kingdom . The United Kingdom  may provide details 
of the programme of direct payment under Covid -response measures?  
e. As per the Supporting Table DS:3 Me asures Exempt from the Reduction Commitment 
– Direct Payments under Production -limiting Programmes - "Exempt Direct Payments, the 
United Kingdom  has mentioned two programmes - Voluntary Coupled Support fixed area 
payments: Protein Crops (Northern Ireland) and Livestock payments made on a fixed 
number of head Voluntary Coupled Support headage payments: Beef and sheep. The 
United Kingdom  is requested to provide details of the programme, including eligibility 
conditions. We may also ask to clarify if these pro grammes satisfy the production limiting 
condition. If so, how?  
f. For measures notified under the Supporting Table DS:5, the United Kingdom  is requested 
to elaborate as to how the eligible production determined for the programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 102072: Question b y Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In follow -up to the reply received from the United Kingdom to question AG -IMS ID 101089 , could 
the United Kingdom:   
a. Confirm that mechanical harrowing is not used in organic crop farming? We note that the 
United Kingdom has pointed to carbon sequestration and the fact that organic farming 
prevents erosion as elements demonstrating that organic farming is sustainable. We ask 
the United Kingdom to indicate how it is only organic crops, and not conventional crops, 
that sequester carbon and how the former prevent erosion.   
b. Which criteria are used to categorize organic farming as a climate change mitigation 
measure, considering that this type of farming can increase the carbon footprint of 
products by requiring more land and water use than conventional farming to produce the 
same amount of food? In this connection, we also ask how organic farming helps conserve 
water.   
c. How is organic farming considered to be linked to animal welfare?   G/AG/W/222  
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 102107: Question by India - Market price support  
We thank the United Kingdom for submitting its DS:1 not ification G/AG/N/GBR/11 . India observes  
that the United Kingdom  has provided market price support calculation for butter, skimmed milk 
powder and common wheat in Supporting Table DS:5. In this context, India requests the United 
Kingdom  to provide details on the following:  
a. Whether the United Kin gdom  Government is still announcing the applied administered 
price for butter, skimmed milk powder and common wheat? If yes, then what is the 
applicable applied administered price and coverage of products for the year 2022?  
b. India observes that the producti on eligible to receive market price support for all three 
products mentioned in the notification is zero tonnes. Could the United Kingdom  provide 
reasons on why the eligible production is zero?  
c. How was the ERP for butter, skimmed milk powder and common whe at calculated?  
d. It is observed that the administered price and the external reference prices in the 
DS:5 supporting table have been redenominated using the exchange rate that prevailed 
on 31 December 2020, 1 Euro = 0.89903. This is in contrast with the UK 's communication 
via document no. G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1, where the currency components of the 
schedule of concessions were redenominated using the average exchange rate of 2015 -19, 
1 Euro = 0.83687 GBP. Could the United Kingdom  explain the rationale behind using 
different exchange rates in the Schedule and DS:1 notification?   
e. As per the notification requirements and format under G/AG/2 , Members with Total AMS 
commitment in Part IV of their Schedule are required to notify the domestic support 
measures no later than 90 days followin g the end of the calendar (or, marketing, fiscal, 
etc.) year in question. In the context, India would like to know the reasons for not notifying 
the domestic support notification by the United Kingdom  as per the timeline of G/AG/2 . 
AG-IMS ID 102071: Question by Paraguay, Brazil - Classification of measures  
Paraguay and Brazil thank the United Kingdom for submitting notification G/AG/N/GBR/11 . On this 
matter, further to the questions submitted at the previous meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
we note that the United Kingdom includes "verification of compliance w ith feed and food law, animal 
welfare rules " in paragraph 2(b) of the Green Box.   
Could the United Kingdom explain how animal welfare is related to pest and disease control, or 
whether this programme should be included under another category?   
2.3.14   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  
AG-IMS ID 102130: Question by Australia - General services: extension and advisory 
services  
Australia thanks the US for submitting its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/157 and notes the 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), adm inistered by the US Farm Service Agency (FSA), valued 
at USD  2,868 million. Australia notes the 'other environmental benefits ' described in this notification, 
as well as the FSA fact sheet ( https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-
Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2022/conservation -reserve_program -fact_sheet_2022.pdf ) which 
outlines other 'on-farm benefits ' from reduced erosio n.  
a. Could the US please clarify what the 'on-farm benefits ' are in relation to this programme?  
b. Could the US please elaborate on who the CRP participants are who receive payments 
from the FSA?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.4  New or modified domestic support measures  (Table DS:2)  
2.4.1   Argentina  (G/AG/N/ARG/52)  
AG-IMS ID 102045: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/ARG/52  Argentina notified a domestic support measure entitled "Programme for the 
promotion of local employment, integration and procurement. " The description only state s "Advisory 
service and technical support to facilitate local food production and creation of jobs for producers 
engaged in family farming ". 
Please provide further details with regards to this measure and how the measure facilitates local 
food production a nd creation of jobs for producers.  
The title of the measure includes the word "procurement "; does the Government of Argentina 
purchase food from producers under this measure and, if so, how?  
2.4.2   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/53)  
AG-IMS ID 102046: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/ARG/53  Argentina notified a domestic support measure entitled "Programme for direct 
and critical assistance for family, rural and indigenous farming. " 
The description only states "Aid for producers engaged in family , rural and indigenous farming, 
whose production is at risk from the effects of climatic events (bad weather), social crises or extreme 
occurrences (geographical isolation). " 
a. Please provide further details with regards to this measure and how the measure a ids 
producers, including how levels of payment are determined.  
b. Please elaborate on what is meant by "extreme occurrences (geographical isolation) " and 
how this relates to adherence with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 1021 27: Question by United Kingdom - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters  
The United Kingdom thanks Argentina for its submission of G/AG/N/ARG/53  and notes that some 
additio nal supporting information would be beneficial. Could Argentina provide further information 
on how this support meets the criteria set out in paragraph 8 (a) that eligibility for such payments 
"shall be determined by a production loss which exceeds 3 0% of the average of production in the 
preceding three -year period or a three -year average based on the preceding five -year period, 
excluding the highest and the lowest entry"?  
2.5  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.5.1   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/19)  
AG-IMS I D 102128: Question by United Kingdom - Transparency issues  
The United Kingdom thanks Kazakhstan for notification G/AG/N/KAZ/19 . The United Kingdom 
welcomes the transparency that Kazakhstan has provided to the WTO by notifying this export 
restriction and would encourage other Members, especially  net exporters, to follow this example 
where they have restrictive measures in place. The United Kingdom notes that Kazakhstan 's 
restriction on wheat and wheat flour has been extended to the 30th of September 2022. Could 
Kazakhstan indicate whether it plan s to further extend this restriction and what factors will inform 
its decision?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.5.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/52, G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1)  
AG-IMS ID 102047: Question by United States of America, Japan, United Kingdom - 
Transparency issues  
On 1 August  2022, Malaysia 's Minister of Agriculture and Food Industry stated  that Malaysia 's 
chicken supply has re -stabilized, and the count ry is now dealing with a chicken oversupply.  
The Minister also stated that Malaysia has the capacity to export chicken supplies but will not yet lift 
its export ban. (Source: https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/ronald -malaysia -currently -
facing -slight -chicken -oversupply -after-effective -measures -taken ). 
The stated purpose of the original export ban was "to ensure sufficient domestic supply to address 
the ongoing domestic chicken shortage situation in Malaysia. " 
Given that Malaysia now has an oversupply of chicken and the capacity to expo rt, and taking into 
consideration the effects that export bans may have on an importing Member 's food security, is 
Malaysia considering lifting its export ban on poultry sooner than the recently notified dates of 
30 November ( G/AG/N/MYS/52 ) and 7 December ( G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1 )? 
AG-IMS ID 102008: Question by European Union, United Kingdom - Other  
On June 24, Malaysia has submitted a notification to the WTO - G/AG/N/MYS/52  (issued 
on 27/06/2022) as well as an addendum to it on 21/07/2022, informing of an export restrictions on: 
Live day old chick broilers and live broilers (except coloured birds and villag e chicken), whole 
chicken, chicken cuts and parts . The measure is in force from 1 June 2022 until 7 December 2022.  
The EU thanks Malaysia for notifying this measure.  
Could Malaysia explain what would be the expected impact of the measure on trade in the pr oducts 
concerned?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Botswana  
AG-IMS ID 102048: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks Botswana for submitting its DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/BWA/35 ) for 
financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.  
The next most recent DS:1 notification Botswana submi tted was for the financial year 1 April 2017 
to 31 March 2018.  
When does Botswana plan to submit the notifications for the period from 1 April 2018 to 
31 March  2020?  
3.2  Canada  
AG-IMS ID 102086: Question by New Zealand  
New Zealand notes that Canada 's last DS:1 notification was for the calendar year 2018. Can Canada 
please advise when they plan to submit their outstanding DS:1 notifications covering the 
years  2019-2021?  
3.3  China  
AG-IMS ID 102049: Question by United States of America  
Table ES:3 and Table NF:1 Notifications   
As a follow -up to AG -IMS IDs 93166 , 92029  and 88082 , China stated that it was conducting a study 
to determine whether it is required to submit notifications of tables ES:3 (sho wing total volume of G/AG/W/222  
 
- 36 - 
 
  food aid) and NF:1 (reporting the quantity of food aid as well as technical and financial assistance 
provided to least -developed and net food importing developing countries).  
a. What was China 's conclusion as to whether it needs to submit  these notifications?   
b. Please clarify when the Committee can expect these notifications, or explain why China 
believes it does not need to notify them.   
3.4  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 102013: Question by European Union  
Egypt – DS:1 notifications  
The latest DS:1 notifica tion from Egypt covers the marketing year 2016/17.  
When will Egypt introduce its notifications for the following years? Can Egypt indicate a timeline?  
AG-IMS ID 102087: Question by New Zealand, Paraguay  
New Zealand notes that Egypt 's last DS:1 notificatio n was for 2017. Can Egypt please advise when 
they plan to submit their outstanding DS:1 notifications covering the years 2018 -2021?  
AG-IMS ID 102050: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Egypt's most recent notification submis sion ( G/AG/N/EGY/3 ) 
concerning domestic  support commitments (Tables DS:1 and DS:2) covering financial years 
2005/2006 to 2016/2017 is from February 2017.   
Please specify when Egypt will submit Tables DS:1 and DS:2 notifications for financial 
years  2017/2018 and 2018/2019.  
3.5  Kazakhstan  
AG-IMS ID 1 02024: Question by United States of America  
The United States takes note that Kazakhstan implements a number of domestic support measures.  
Kazakhstan 's Ministry of Agriculture published two policy documents: "Concept Note of Industrial 
Agricultural Develo pment of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2021 -2030, " and "National Agricultural 
Sector Development Project: 2021 -25". 
In the documents, the Ministry of Agriculture noted Kazakhstan provided approximately 260.5  billion 
Kazakhstani Tenge (KZT) in 2020 and 471.9 billion KZT in 2021 of domestic support to its agricultural 
sector through various subsidies, loans, and developmental programs.  
The United States is concerned as Kazakhstan has never notified a Table DS:1 or Table DS:2 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture despite stating in response to AG -IMS ID 92040  in 
October 2019 that notific ations would be submitted "in the nearest future. "  
When will Kazakhstan provide its overdue domestic support notifications (Tables DS:1 and DS:2)?   
3.6  Malaysia  
AG-IMS ID 102088: Question by New Zealand  
New Zealand thanks Malaysia for their recent submission of their DS:1 notification for 2015. Can 
Malaysia please advise when they plan to submit their outstanding DS:1 notifications covering the 
years 2016 -2021?  
New Zealand is particularly interested in further information on Malaysia 's support to th e poultry 
sector, any information Malaysia can provide on the scale and nature of this support would be greatly 
appreciated.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 37 - 
 
  3.7  Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 102051: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91182 , the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which Morocco has not provided a written answer:   
"The United States notes that Morocco is overdue in notifying (Table ES:1 and Supporting 
Table  ES:2), and responses to the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) from calendar year  2016 
to the present. "  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 and Supporting T able ES:2 notifications, and a response to 
the ECQ on operational changes in export subsidy measures.  
3.8  South Africa  
AG-IMS ID 102089: Question by New Zealand, Paraguay  
New Zealand notes that South Africa 's last DS:1 notification was for 2014. Can South Afr ica please 
advise when they plan to submit their outstanding DS:1 notifications covering the years 2015 -2021?  
4  EXPORT COMPETITION  
4.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 102052: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes Australia reported in its Export Comp etition Questionnaire that Export 
Finance Australia (EFA) issued bonds worth AUD 11.86 million for food product manufacturing 
exports and responded "n/a" for the maximum repayment term. In the past, Australia reported a 
maximum repayment of 18 months under  the EFA bonds program.    
a. Please clarify why the maximum repayment term is "n/a" for bonds issued.  
Australia only provided a value figure for "food product manufacturing " but did not provide which 
product groups are included or its value figures under the bond programs.    
b. Please provide the value figures for each product or product group for the bond program.  
Australia reported that EFA issued Risk Participation Agreements  (RPA) risk cover worth AUD 8.84 
million for basic material wholesaling.  
Australia only provided a value figure for "basic material wholesaling " but did not provide which 
product groups are included or its value figure under the RPA program.  
c. Please explain  why value figures for agricultural product or product group for the 
RPA program were not provided.  
4.2  Canada  
AG-IMS ID 102053: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Canada reported in its Export Competition Questionnaire for item  7 
that CAD  3,324 million was used for North America under Credit Insurance.   
a. Please list what agricultural products were being financed to North America during the 
notification period.  
b. What countries are covered under the geographic area of "North America, " as Canada 
reports Mexico with Central America and the Caribbean?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.3  China  
AG-IMS ID 102054: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes China did not provide a reply to  the 2021 Export Competition 
Questionnaire  (ECQ).  
Please provide a data update for year 2021 in the ECQ.  
AG-IMS ID 102055: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  
 
The United States notes that China responded to the 2020 ECQ for item 8 with "Nil". On 
15 March  2022, China responded to AG -IMS ID 100026  that "There are no readily available statistics 
on usage by product or product group ".  
a. Please clarify when will China provide data for "program use by product or product group ".  
b. If SINOSURE is not able to provide this data, please explain why that is the case, and what 
steps are being taken to correct this information gap for information required to be 
reported to Members of this Committee.   
We note that China responded in the ECQ that the Export -Import Bank under the export order 
financing program covered a total of USD 27 2 million of agricultural products.  
c. Please provide the annual average premium rates/fees for this programme.   
AG-IMS ID 102056: Question by United States of America  
Food Assistance   
In its 2020 ECQ response, China stated that it provided USD 6 million in food assistance to 
developing countries through the UN 's World Food Program and the United Nations Children 's Fund, 
which is multilateral food assistance in nature.   
a. Please clarify and confirm that China did not provide bilateral food assistance of any kin d 
in 2019 and 2020.   
b. If bilateral food aid was provided by means of cash transfers, vouchers, or locally and 
regionally procured food, please provide the total value of food aid for years 2019 
and 2020.   
4.4  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 102057: Question by United States of America  
In the Export Competition Questionnaire response, related to export credits, EU member States of 
Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Slovak  Republic, Spain, and Sweden did not provide a value figure for each agricultural product or 
product group exported under their programmes.  
a. For each of these EU member States, please provide the figures for programme use (i.e., 
the monetary value of export) by product or product group (e.g., agricult ural products) in 
2021.  
b. For each of these EU member States, if the information is not readily available, what 
specific steps is each of these countries taking to gather the information and when will it 
be made available to WTO Members as required by the Na irobi Decision on Export 
Competition ( WT/MIN(15)/45 )?  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 39 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 102058: Question by United States of America  
Food Assistance  
In the Export Competition Questionnaire response, the United States notes that the European Union 
omitted information for Denmark, which is a signatory to the Food Assistance Convention (FAC).   
a. Please provide an update on Denmark 's food assistance data.  
b. While Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and Netherlands are not FAC members yet, would the 
European Union please provide information on their bilateral food assistance programmes 
and include this information in subsequent ECQ responses?  
4.5  Ghana  
AG-IMS ID 102059: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
The United States notes Ghana's Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has not yet been notified to the W TO as 
a state trading enterprise (STE) under Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and has also not been reported 
in the Export Competition Questionnaire 's (ECQ) STE section in the WTO Committee on Agriculture.  
Since COCOBOD is a state -owned enterprise having mono poly rights over the export of all cocoa 
beans from Ghana, and in 2021 Ghana was the world's largest exporter of cocoa beans (42% of 
total export value), the United States requests the following information:  
a. Please provide an update on the steps Ghana is t aking to notify COCOBOD as a STE to the 
Working Party on STEs, which Ghana informed the Working Party it would do eight years 
ago. 
b. What steps is Ghana taking to respond to the WTO Committee on Agriculture Export 
Competition Questionnaire 's (ECQ) STE sectio n, taking note of COCOBOD 's role in Ghana 's 
dominant position in cocoa bean exports?  
4.6  India  
AG-IMS ID 102026: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that India did not provide a response to the 2021 Export Competition 
Questionnaire (E CQ). 
When can Members expect India to provide the required information?  
AG-IMS ID 102027: Question by United States of America  
In AG -IMS ID 100028 , India provided a breakdown of agricultural products for its 2020 ECQ but 
there was no value for cotton, and also reported "others " valued at USD 2.89 billion.   
a. Please confirm whether "others " refers to cotton or any other commodities.   
b. If it refers to something other than only cotton, please specify the total value of cotton 
financed under ECGC Credit risk insurance program for 2019 -20, and for 2020 -21 in 
the 2021 ECQ.   
4.7  Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 102060: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Indonesia has not provided data updates of its export credit 
programmes in the required Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for years 2019, 2020 
and 2021.  G/AG/W/222  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Please provide these updates fo r years 2019, 2020 and 2021.   
4.8  Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 102061: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that the Republic of Korea, in responding to the Export Competition 
Questionnaire (ECQ), said, "There is no data as regards agricultural export value covered by export 
credit guarantees or export insurance programmes since they do not separately manage agricultural 
products fr om other exports. "  
Please explain what steps is the Republic of Korea taking to correct these information gaps and make 
this data available to Members of this Committee in the future as required by the Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition ( WT/MIN(15)/45 ). 
4.9  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 102062: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that in the Export Competition Questionnaire response, Thailand did not 
provide a value figure for agricultural products listed in item 8 for both the Export Credit and Export 
Credit Insurance Programs f or 2019 and 2020.  
Also, Thailand did not provide a data update for 2021.  
Please provide the value figure for the agricultural products listed in item 8 for both programmes 
for 2019 and 2020.   
4.10  Türkiye  
AG-IMS ID 102063: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Türkiye in its 2020 and 2021 ECQs did not provide in item  8 a 
breakdown of products or product groups (e.g., agricultural products) and value figures exported 
under its short export credit insurance programme.  Please provide th e figures for programme use 
by product or product group in 2020 and 2021.  
 
 
__________